Week 14. Issues relating to bilingualism and general wrap-up

1
GRS LX 700Language Acquisition andLinguistic
Theory

• Week 14.Issues relating to bilingualism and
  general wrap-up

2
Code-switching

• Code-switching often occurs in conversations
  between fluent bilinguals mixing up the two
  languages.
• Sometimes people distinguish between code-mixing
  (intra) and code-switching (inter).
• We wont distinguish here, but were mainly
  talking about intrasentential mixing.

3
Spanish-English

• No, yo sí brincaba en el trampoline when I was a
  senior.No, I did jump on the trampoline when I
  was a senior.
• La consulta era eight dollars.The office visit
  was eight dollars.
• Well, I keep starting some. Como por un mes todos
  los días escribo y ya dejo.Well, I keep
  starting some. For about a month I write
  everything and then I stop.

4
But it isnt random

• El viejo man The old man
• The old hombre El hombre viejo
• The viejo hombre
• Certain mixes are not considered to be possible
  by fluent bilinguals.

5
But it isnt random

• The old man Vo buuRaa aadmii
• The buuRaa man Vo old aadmii
• The buuRaa aadmii Vo old man
• She sees lo.
• How can we characterize what mixes are possible
  vs. impossible?

6
Prior efforts

• Several proposals have been offered to account
  for what are good mixes and what arent, but it
  appears to be a hard problem. Very famous attempt
  by Poplack (1980, 1981)
• The equivalence constraint. Codes will tend to be
  switched at points where the surface structure of
  the languages map onto each other.
• The free morpheme constraint. A switch may occur
  at any point in the discourse at which it is
  possible to make a surface constituent cut and
  still retain a free morpheme.

7
Poplack

• Looking at the constraints on code-switching of
  this sorts can help us understand the nature of
  (at least fluent) bilingual language
  representation.
• One odd thing about Poplacks constraints is that
  it implies that part of UG is dedicated to
  mixing. The Free Morpheme Constraint and
  Equivalence Constraint are only constraints on
  mixing two grammars. Is UG built specifically for
  bilinguals?

8
Problems for Poplack

• Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints
  Accounts for estoy eatiendo, but leaves
  unexplained
• The students habian visto la pelicula italien.
• The student had visto la pelicua italien.
• Los estudiantes habian seen the Italian movie.
• Motrataroa de nin kirescataroa n
  PocajontasRef-treat-vsf about this
  3s-3os-rescue-vsf in P.It deals with the one
  who rescues P.

9
Problems for Poplack?

• El no wants to go
• He doesnt quiere ir.
• No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (Im not
  working)
• Amo estoy trabajandonot be.3s work-dur Im not
  working

10
Problems for Poplack

• Tú tikoas tlakemetl 2sg
  2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf(You will buy
  clothes)
• El kikoas tlakmetlhe
  3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsfHe will buy
  clothes

11
MacSwan 1999

• Perhaps the most currently comprehensive and
  promising account, building on recent
  developments in syntactic theory.
• One of the basic premises is that language
  parameters are properties of lexical items (not
  of a language-wide grammar). E.g., verb-movement
  is due to a property of the tense morpheme in
  French, not shared by the tense morpheme in
  English.

12
MacSwan 1999

• The broad (minimalist) approach to grammar
  takes language to consist of two primary
  components.
• Computational system (builds trees), language
  invariant.
• Lexicon, language particular. Functional elements
  of the lexicon encode the parameters of variation.

13
MacSwan 1999

• MacSwans proposal is that there are no
  constraints on code mixing over and above
  constraints found on monolingual sentences.
• (His only constraint which obliquely refers to
  code mixing is the one we turn to next, roughly
  that within a word, the language must be
  coherent.)
• We can determine what are possible mixes by
  looking at the properties of the (functional
  elements) of the lexicons of the two mixed
  languages.

14
MacSwan 1999

• The model of code mixing is then just like
  monolingual speechthe only difference being that
  the words and functional elements are not always
  drawn from the lexicon belonging to a single
  language.
• Where requirements conflict between languages is
  where mixing will be prohibited.

15
Clitics, bound morphemes

• Some lexical items in some languages are clitics,
  they depend (usually phonologically) on
  neighboring words. Similar to the concept of
  bound morpheme.
• Johns book.
• I shouldnt go.
• Clitics essentially fuse with their host.

16
Clitics, bound morphemes

• Clitics generally cannot be stressed.
• JohnS book
• I couldNT go.
• Clitics generally form an inseparable unit with
  their host.
• Shouldnt I go?
• Should I not go?
• Should I nt go?

17
Spanish no

• It turns out that Spanish no appears to be a
  clitic (despite spelling conventions).
• Qué no dijo Juan? What didnt J say?
• Qué sólo leyó Juan? (What did J only read?)
• Qué meramente leyó Juan?(What did J merely
  read?)
• Juan no ha no hecho la tarea.(J hasnt not
  done the task.)

18
Nahuatl amo

• In Nahuatl, amo not does not appear to be a
  clitic.
• Amo nio amo niktati nowelti.Not 1s-go not
  1s-3Os-see my-sisterIm not going to not see my
  sister.

19
Spanish-Nahuatl mixing

• No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (Im not
  working)
• Amo estoy trabajandonot be.3s work-dur Im not
  working
• Now, we can begin to make sense of the difference
  in possible mixes at the point of negation
  between Spanish and Nahuatl.

20
MacSwan 1999

• MacSwan proposes essentially that it is not
  possible to code-mix within a (word-like)
  phonological unit. Essentially a restriction on
  what are pronouncable trees.
• Idea phonology operates as a set of ordered
  rules which are ordered differently in different
  languagesyou cant run both sets of rules at
  once, hence the result if you tried would be
  unpronounceable.
• Since Spanish no fuses with the following verb,
  it cant be followed by a Nahuatl verb.
• Since Nahuatl amo does not fuse with the
  following verb, it is free to be followed by a
  Spanish verb.

21
English-Spanish

• This also explains Spanish-English (well,
  Spanish-anything)
• El no wants to go
• What about English-Spanish?
• He doesnt quiere ir.
• He doesnt wants to go.

22
Agreement

• In languages that code agreement between subject
  and verb, it also appears that mixing is only
  possible where the agreement relationship is not
  disrupted.
• He doesnt quiere ir.
• English negation agreement appears on do.
• Spanish negation agreement appears on the verb.
• You cant have extra agreement one subject, one
  agreement. They need to match.

23
Agreement

• Yo nikoas tlakemetl I 1s-3Os-buy-fut
  garment-pl-nsf(I will buy clothes)
• Tú tikoas tlakemetl you 2s-3Os-buy-fut
  garment-pl-nsf(You will buy clothes)
• Él/Ella kikoas tlakemetlHe/She
  3s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsfHe/She will buy
  clothes

24
Agreement

• Ni-k-koa-s I will buy
• Ti-k-koa-s You will buy
• Ø-k(i)-koa-s He/she wlll buy
• Also relevant Spanish marks and agrees with
  gender but Nahuatl does not distinguish masculine
  from feminine.
• Spanish pronouns have gender specification. The
  Nahuatl verb does not. They can only be
  compatible (match) if there is no Nahuatl
  agreement morpheme.

25
Spanish-Catalan-Greek

• Spanish and Catalan both have two genders,
  masculine and feminine.
• Greek has three genders, masculine, feminine,
  neuter.
• Predicts Mixing subjects and verbs between the
  three languages is only possible between the
  gender-compatible languages.

26
Spanish-Catalan-Greek

• Yo vull mengar el dinar (S-C)
• Jo queiro comer la cena (C-S)
• Ego vull mengar el dinar (G-C)
• Ego queiro comer la cena (G-S)

27
Mixing and L2A?

• Code mixing as discussed so far is generally a
  property of the speech of fluent bilinguals
  (often native bilinguals) and reflects properties
  of universal language knowledge.
• We can now return to our old question and ask
  Does the knowledge of second language learners
  also have the restrictions on code mixing? To the
  extent that this is part of UG, is this aspect
  of UG active for L2ers?

28
Toribio Rubin

• Beginning, intermediate, and advanced learners of
  Spanish (English L1), asked to imitate code-mixed
  utterances.
• Beginning Processing errors everywhere.
• Intermediate Repeated everything equally
  fluently.
• Advanced Repeated good mixes fluently, tripped
  up or unknowingly corrected improper mixes.
• Looks like the constraints emerge, but
  intermediates are probably translating to L1 and
  doing any judgments there.

29
Bhatia Ritchie (1996)

• Us ne kahaa that he will go there.
• Us ne kahaa ki he will go there.
• Us ne kahaa that vo vahãã jaay-egaa.
• He said ki vo vahãã jaay-egaa.
• He said that vo vahãã jaay-egaa.
• He said ki he will go there.
• Conclusion was that intermediate and advanced
  learners do have (access to) the constraints.
  Beginning learners showed very little sensitivity
  to contrasts.

30
So

• Code switching/mixing is quite systematic, and
  moreover quite normal behavior for fluent
  bilinguals.
• It also gives us hints about how languages are
  represented, to what degrees theyre kept
  separate.

31
Anomic aphasia

• Loss of ability to retrieve words from memory,
  happens with almost any kind of aphasia (often
  with other more severe consequences), early
  dementia, healthy tired individuals
• Words are not equally susceptible theres a
  systematicity to the errors.

32
Anomic aphasia

• Content words (boat) are more susceptible than
  function words (the).
• Infrequent words are more susceptible than
  frequent words.
• Proper nouns are more susceptible than common
  nouns.
• Sometime semantic classes go as a block (color
  words, letters, numbers).

33
Regression

• Theres an old idea sometimes referred to as the
  rule of Ribot (dating back to the 1880s) that
  the newest things learned are the most vulnerable
  to attrition (Freud adopted this view, calling it
  regression, a return to earlier stages,
  Jakobsen claimed the same thing).
• But an aphasic who says Baby cry is not as happy
  with it as an infant.

34
Aphasias
Brocasnonfluent cmpr okrep poor Wernickesfluentcmpr poorrep poor conductionfluent cmpr okrep poor
anomicfluentcmpr okrep ok transcortical sensorynonfluentcmpr poorrep poor transcortical motornonfluent cmpr okrep ok
35
How about multiple languages?

• What about a second language?
• Are the same brain areas used for both L1 and L2?
  Or are they different? Or do they overlap?

36
Recovery from aphasia

• When a bilingual suffers from an aphasia, several
  things can happen during recovery (assuming
  recovery)
• Parallel recovery
• Differential recovery
• L1 recovers faster (Ribots lawold before new)
• L2 recovers faster (Pitres lawfrequent first)
• Recovery generally implies that the actual
  language centers havent been destroyed, only
  either cut off or inhibited.

37
Recovery from aphasia

• The fact that L1 and L2 can recover independently
  implies that they are at least in part
  differentially represented in the brain.
• Case Dimitrijevic (1940) Woman grew up in
  Bulgaria, Yiddish home language, moved to
  Belgrade at 34 and spoke Serbian (and Yiddish)
  from then on, forgetting Bulgarian. A brain
  injury at 60, after two months for recovery,
  resulted in her only being able to speak
  Bulgarian and Yiddish she could no longer speak
  Serbian (though she could understand it), despite
  it having been her dominant language for 25 years.

38
Second language recovery

• Almost 1/3 of reported multilingual aphasics do
  not recover their L1, but their L2 (L3, ).
• Case Minkowski (1928). Patients L1 was Swiss
  German, learned standard German in school, moved
  to France for 6 years, became fluent in French,
  then moved back to Switzerland (using SG, though
  still reading French). 19 years later, had a
  stroke. After 3 days for 3 weeks spoke only
  (increasingly fluent) French, then started
  recovering German, but for 6 months was incapable
  of using SG. Around Christmas, suddenly SG
  returned (to the detriment of French).

39
Factors involved in L2 recovery?

• Minkowskis idea is that the languages are not
  really spatially separated, but that they exert
  mutual inhibition in a fairly delicate balance. A
  lesion will disrupt that balance and can suppress
  a language (including L1).
• In support, often lost languages can be
  recovered faster than usually required to learn
  from scratch.
• Also, autopsy studies dont seem to reveal a
  larger extent to Brocas area in polyglots
  (Sauerwin, spoke 54 languages both at poetry and
  prose level normal extent and development in
  Brocas area)

40
Factors involved in L2 recovery?

• Familiarity often is the determining factor.
• Conscious vs. unconscious knowledge.
• Psychological, emotional factors.
• Language spoken to patient in hospital.
• Domain-specific (rote) language
• Higher inhibition levels between closely-related
  languages.

41
Recovery of non-communicationlanguages

• Case Grasset (1884). Patient knew only French
  (never studied other languages), but then had a
  stroke and after a few days, began speaking only
  Latin (single words only, primarily
  prayer-related).
• Case Pötzl (1925). Professor who knew several
  modern languages as well as classical Greek and
  Latin. After a stroke, he was only able to
  express himself in the dead languages, which he
  only knew through reading.

42
Paradoxical recovery

• Case Paradis Goldblum (1989). L1 Gujarati,
  from Madagascar (spoke Malagasy), learned French
  in school. After brain surgery, tested fine in
  French but was having trouble with Gujarati at
  homefairly classic Brocas aphasia symptoms.
  Malagasy was fine. Over following months,
  Gujarati was recovered, but at the expense of
  Malagasy. 2 years later, Gujarati was fine,
  Malagasy was impaired. 4 years later, both were
  fine.
• Suggests differential inhibition (rather than
  localization).

43
Switching and mixing

• Healthy bilinguals speaking to other bilinguals
  will often code-mix or code-switch.
• Aphasic bilinguals sometimes mix unconsciously
  without regard to the normal conversational
  triggers of code-mixing (often using multiple
  languages in conversation with monolingual
  speakers).
• Or, they will show fixation on one language,
  responding only in one language regardless of the
  language in which they are addressed.

44
Alternating antagonism

• More dramatic cases reported where patients
  switch week by week or day by day between
  near-total control and near-absent control of one
  language, in complementary distribution to
  another.
• Case Bruce (1895) Welsh/English (Welsh, left
  handed, demented, docile English, right handed,
  restless and destructive). Alternated sometimes
  several times per day.
• Bruce proposed this was due to differential
  hemispheric dominance later supported by studies
  of subjects with severed corpus callosum.
  Suggested left hemisphere was home of abstract
  (instructable) capacities.

45
Translation

• Aphasic deficits in translation capabilities
  suggest translation might be a separate system.
• Reported cases of loss of ability to translate
  (but retaining some abilities in each language).
• Other reported cases of loss of ability not to
  translate Case Perecman (1984) patient would
  always spontaneously translate German (L1)
  sentences uttered into English (L2) immediate
  afterward, yet could not perform translation task
  on request.

46
Translation

• Sometimes this can happen even without
  comprehension Case Veyrac (1931) patient
  (English L1, French dominant L2), could not
  understand simple instructions in French, but
  when instructed in English would spontaneously
  translate them to French and then fail to carry
  them out.

47
Paradoxical translation

• Case Paradis et al. (1982). Patient switched (by
  day) between producing Arabic and producing
  French. When producing only Arabic, she could
  only translate from Arabic into French when
  producing only French, she could only translate
  from French into Arabic.

48
Bilingual representation

• A number of dissociated phenomena in bilingual
  aphasia studies.
• Sometimes only one language returns, not always
  L1
• production and comprehension and translation seem
  to be separable, and even by language.
• Monolingual aphasia studies seem to correlate
  lesion localization with function.
• Not much evidence for localization differences
  between multiple languages per se.
• Some evidence for localization differences
  between types of learning? (written, conscious
  vs. unconscious, implicit vs. explicit memory?)

49
Bilingual representation

• Given the postmortem studies showing no real
  morphological differences between monolinguals
  and polyglots, the most consistent picture seems
  to be one of shared neural architecture with
  inhibition between languages.
• Choice of language A inhibits access to grammar,
  vocabulary of language B during production.
• Comprehension is often spared even in the face of
  production inability, suggesting that the same
  kind of inhibition does not hold of comprehension.

50
Bilingual representation

• Many of the aphasic symptoms in production can be
  described in terms of changing inhibitions the
  lesion disrupts the balance of inhibition and
  excitation between neural structures, leading to
• loss of inhibition (pathological mixing)
• heightened invariant inhibition (fixation)
• shifting inhibition (alternating antagonism)
• psychological inhibition (repression)

51
Subsystems

• There also seem to be several subsystems which
  can be individually impaired.
• Naming, concepts
• Fluency of production
• Ability to retain and repeat
• Translation from L1 to L2
• Translation from L2 to L1
• Some of these seem to correlate with localization
  differences.

52
More modern methods and results

• Recording electrical activity in the brain can
  also help us see which parts are used in language
  tasks
• Electroencephalogram (EEG)
• Event-related potentials (ERP).
• Magnetoencephalogram (MEG)
• Functional brain imaging
• Computer axial tomography (CT) (X-rays)
• Positron emission tomography (PET)
• Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)

53
MEG
54
ex. Pylkkänen, Stringfellow, Kelepir, Marantz
(2000)
M350 The first MEG component sensitive to
manipulations of stimulus properties affecting
lexical activation. Working hypothesis this
component reflects automatic spreading activation
of the lexicon at signal maximum all the
competitors are activated.
stimulus
RT
BELL
M250 A component between the M180 and M350. Also
insensitive to variations in stimulus properties
that affect lexical access. Clearly distinct from
the M350 as these two responses have opposite
polarities. Processing of orthographic forms?
Postlexical processes including the word/nonword
decision of the lexical decision task.
M180 A visual response unaffected by stimulus
properties such as frequency (Hackl et al, 2000),
repetition (Sekiguchi et al, 2000, Pylkkänen et
al 2000) and phonotactic probability/density.
Clearly posterior dipolar pattern.
55
More modern methods and results

• Wada test. Sodium amytal causing temporary neural
  paralysis can simulate a possible aphasia (in
  order to avoid it during neurosurgery).
• Electrical stimulation. Similar but shorter term,
  more localized.
• Results are mainly in line with other knowledge,
  but the problem with these tests is that a)
  electrical stimulation is hard to repeat
  (imprecise), b) both methods can only be used on
  people waiting for neurosurgery who may have
  abnormal brains.

56
Ojemann Whitaker 1978

• Dutch inhibited
• English inhibited
• Both inhibited
• Neither inhibited

• For whatits worth

57
Differences bilingual and monolingual
representations

• Best guess at this point is that there is
  overlapthe several languages make partial use of
  physiologically distinct areas of the brain, but
  also share a lot in common.
• Some evidence that second language has a
  right-hemisphere component, more diffuse than
  first language, although directly contradictory
  findings have also been reported.
• The state of things is actually a little bit
  disappointingbut it turns out to be hard work..!

58
End of the semesterWrap upTake-Home Points
59
Some major views on L1A/syntax

• Radford/Guilfoyle/Noonan kids lack functional
  elements initially, have only lexical elements.
• Wexler kids have access to all the same
  grammatical elements that adults do.
• Rizzi kids have truncated trees
• Vainikka kids grow trees

60
L1A Case errors

• Kids will sometimes make case errors with the
  subject (until around 2).
• Me got bean.
• In English, accusative (me) is the default.
• Very often taken to indicate a subject not in
  SpecIP (a.k.a. SpecAgrSP). No IP? (Radford)
  Sometimes IP and above (Rizzi, Vainikka)? No
  AgrSP? (Wexler)

61
L1A Null subjects

• Kids will also often drop out subjects, even in
  languages where null subjects are not allowed.
• Hyams (1986) Mis-set parameter theyre speaking
  Italian initially.
• Kids who are learning null subject languages drop
  more subjects than kids who are learning non-null
  subject languages.
• Bloom Long sentences are harder, drop what you
  can. The beginning of a sentence is more
  susceptible.
• Wexler/Hyams Kids drop more subjects with
  nonfinite verbs. PRO. Sometimes topic drop with
  finite verbs, where topic isnt yet grasped.

62
L1A Optional Infinitives

• In many languages, kids will allow nonfinite
  verbs in root clauses sometimes, early on (up to
  a little after 2).
• NS/OI? Wexler (1998) suggests that theres a
  strong correlation between lack of OIs in
  2-year-old speech and being a null subject
  language.
• True? Or are OIs just extra-rare in null subject
  languages (correlation with more elaborate
  inflection?).

63
L1A Finite vs. nonfinite

• During Optional Infinitive stage, kids with OIs
  treat finite verbs like finite verbs and
  nonfinite verbs like nonfinite verbs.
• German (Poeppel Wexler) V2 for finite verbs,
  final V for nonfinite verbs.
• French (Pierce) Verb before pas for finite
  verbs, verb after pas for nonfinite verbs.

64
Some stories about OIs

• Rizzi until maturation of RootCP, trees
  truncated sometimes below tense.
• Wexler/Schütze Syntax intact, but something
  prohibits the same (subject) DP from licensing
  both TP (finite tense) and AgrP (Nom case).
• Radford Kids dont use functional categories at
  this point (yet, leaves the finite verbs act
  finite data unexplained).
• Legendre et al Kids minimize the number of
  functional projections, basically same outcome as
  Schütze Wexler.

65
L1A Principles B and P

• Even older kids seem to allow co-reference in
  apparent violation of Principle B Mary saw her.
• Chien Wexler, then Thornton Wexler, show that
  when quantifier binding is available (and thus
  requires coindexation), Principle B is respected.
• Principle P is slow in coming (matures?), which
  says coreference --gt coindexation.

66
L1A A-chains, passives

• Kids are also purportedly slow to master passives
  and unaccusatives.
• Borer Wexler (1987) This is maturation of the
  ability to represent A-chainsmore
  specifically, the ability to move an object-type
  thing into a subject-type position (non-local
  assignment of q-roles).
• Babyonyshev et al. (1998) show kids have trouble
  with the genitive of negation.

67
L1A A-chains etc.

• Some possible reasons for skepticism on this
• Snyder, Hyams, Crisma (1994) French kids get
  auxiliary selection right with reflexive clitics
• Le chienj siest ti mordu tj .
• VP-internal subjects
• Korean negation misplacement seems to
  differentiate unergative/transitive from
  unaccusatives.

68
L1A Negation outside of IP

• Kids for a while seem to have trouble with
  negation outside the IP, and repair their
  utterances so that it remains inside (usually in
  an adult-ungrammatical way).
• What kind of bread do you dont like?
• Where he couldnt eat the raisins?

69
L1A Syntax

• In general, the errors kids are making seem to be
  very systematic.
• They seem to know many aspects of the grammatical
  system, allowing us to pinpoint (if we look
  closely enough and ask the right questions) what
  parts dont seem to be working.
• A-chains (or dethematization of an external
  arg.).
• Using a D feature twice to check functional
  features.
• Allowing negation in C.
• Requiring coreference to imply coindexation.

70
L2A What can we say?

• Certain things are required to explain L1A.
• Kids dont get negative evidence
• or if they do, it is inconsistent, it is noisy,
  and moreover sometimes when we try to give them
  negative evidence, they ignore it.
• The kids must be able to learn a system that
  assign to some sentences, based only on
  positive evidence.
• Conclusion Universal Grammar constrains the
  kinds of languages there can be, those languages
  cannot generate certain kinds of sentences
  (hence ).

71
L2A What can we say?

• L1A Languages differ from one another.
• Something needs to be learned from the
  environment.
• Yet much of the grammatical system seems common
  across languages.
• Languages can be thought of as varying not in the
  system (the principles) but in the parameters.
• The kids, who learn their native language so
  fast, must have some help setting the parameters.
  A Language Acquisition Device (LAD) designed to
  choose among the options made available by UG.

72
L2A What can we say?

• L2A is generally much harder, more conscious,
  slower, less successful.
• Whats different about L2A? Did UG disappear? Did
  the LAD disappear?
• Question What is the state of the L2ers
  knowledge about the L2?
• Does this conform to what UG would allow?

73
L2A UG-accessibility

• In general, it seems that the evidence points to
  the interlanguages being allowable human
  languages. This could either be influence from UG
  (constraining possible languages) or because the
  IL is a variation on L1.
• Can we tell? Look at parameter settings Does IL
  represent a different option from L1?

74
L2A Transfer

• If the IL is UG-constrained, what is the initial
  starting assumption?
• Is it some kind of general default setting for
  all the parameters (likely to be a subset
  grammar from which all other grammars can be
  learned via position evidence alone)?
• Is it just carrying over the parameter settings
  from L1?
• Some combination of these?

75
L2A Tricks

• In order to look properly at parameters, we need
  to know what they are. And what a default
  setting might be. This turns out to be hard.
• Pro-drop parameter. Default Drop subjects?
  Subset learnable? Correlated with anything else?
• Binding Theory Governing Category? Default?
  Language-wide? Strictly predictable from
  morphology?

76
L2A Interlanguage L1prescriptive rules?

• Is the IL just L1 plus some prescriptive rules
  (LLK)? (Fundamental Difference)
• Or does the IL actually show resetting of
  parameters?
• Resetting should entail cluster of properties
  comes with new value (again requires that we know
  what the parameters, values, clusters are)
• If we can find a non-L1, non-L2, but UG-available
  option in the IL, that also suggests parameter
  setting.

77
Pro-UG

• MacLaughlin (1998) and Japanese to English via
  Russian anaphors.
• Kanno (1996) and JSL learners seeming to know how
  to drop case markers without instruction.

78
UG?

• White (1991), ESL kids coming from French dont
  seem to learn that the verb doesnt raise (at
  least over adverbs).
• Hawkins et al. (1993), FSL people seem to be
  faking Frenchearly stage treating negation as
  part of the verb, start to allow SVAO in addition
  to SAVO (recruiting HNP shift).

79
L2A Is there a difference between kids and
adults?

• L2A is harder as you get older.
• L1A is quite possibility bounded in time.
• Evidence for CPs seem to point to different CPs
  for different subsystems
• CPs exist in vision, maybe we can find a brain
  correlate?
• Yet some people may manage to overcome this and
  become indistinguishable from a native speaker.
  Some plasticity remains?
• What disappears/deteriorates? UG? LAD?

80
L2A Negative evidence useful?

• L1A doesnt use negative evidence.
• If there is parameter transfer into IL from L1,
  logical subset relations might require negative
  evidence to reach correct parameter setting.
• Providing people with negative evidence seems to
  helpbut only in the short term (without
  prolonged practicing), it may not yield any
  permanent parameter resetting.

81
L2A Markedness?

• Are unmarked things easier/quicker to learn
  than marked things? Does teaching the marked
  things give you the unmarked things for free?
• What are the marked and unmarked things?
• Why do we see generalization beyond the marked
  (e.g., in Doughtys NPAH experiment)

82
OIs in adults? No, L2A?L1A

• Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in
  non-finite contexts.
• When verbs are marked with inflection, they
  systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before
  negation (i.e., they move).
• Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts
  (used finitely, moved). Prévost White

Oblig. Fin Oblig. Fin Oblig. Nonfin Oblig. Nonfin
Fin -Fin -Fin Fin
A(F) 767 243 278 17
Z(F) 755 224 156 2
A(G) 389 45 76 7
Z(G) 434 85 98 6
83
Bottom line

• Especially with respect to L2A, there are a lot
  of things left to discover because careful and
  theoretically informed experiments still need to
  be done.
• Many of the experiments that are in the
  literature rely on misleading simplistic notions
  (a monolithic UG subsuming the LAD, a single
  once-and-for-all CPH, a one-stage-at-a time view
  of acquisition, a subset relation for adverb
  placement or binding domain definitions)

84
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?

85
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?